I was moved to blog after reading Jeff's post about USDAW's generous donation in kind of campaign telephones for Glasgow North East. This is a very useful resource to be offered, so it's unfortunate that Labour will be the only party to benefit from it, despite the offer accidentally going out to all MSPs. Nosiness led me to check out USDAW's website, whereupon I got a bit annoyed.
Of the four news stories featured on their website, three mention Labour very favourably in their first paragraph. Ach, I thought, maybe that's to be expected. However, under Support our Campaigns, the second article reads "Winning with Labour... Join Labour today... It's FREE for USDAW members!". It's beyond me why this is ranked more important than USDAW's campaigns for respect for shop workers and support for the minimum wage. If I was being represented by USDAW, I'd be pretty disappointed.
I've only scratched the surface of their website so I apologise if I'm now speaking out of turn. I'm deeply unimpressed by their watery support for increasing the wages of 16 and 17 year olds and in particular the equalisation of the minimum wage. Their most recent article seems to be a survey, behind that, articles from a few years ago. This is a really important issue for me, and I'm surprised that this particular union falls short of the YSI and SNP's position.
I worked for a high street retailer for six years, from sixth year at school until the year after I left uni. This retailer didn't recognise trade unions, and there were several instances where their input would have been useful (shift changes for the Christmas sales, health and safety, conditions). I see from my work in the Council on the Personnel Appeals Committee the commitment and work of Trade Unions in representing their members, and would have appreciated that during my time in retail.
I don't see from USDAW's website however that they're actually achieving anything very much for their members by paying money and giving positive coverage to Labour; it seems unfair that the hard earned money of their members should be blindly funding Labour. If it's a considered democratic and strategic decision, I could give it some respect; more often than not, unions just seem to pay out over and over again with no guarantee of anything in return.
What frustrates me the most about Trade Unions is their seemingly undying commitment to the Labour Party. This isn't just about loyalty to a cause, it's about money too; from 1st July 2008 to 30th June 2009, Trade Unions donated £9,773,918.25 from their coffers to the Labour Party. Of that, USDAW gave £1,895,997.41. In that same period, the only other political party who registered donations from a trade union was No2EU:Yes to Democracy, who were backed by the RMT.
I can understand where the trade unions are coming from, and why the bonds with Labour might be hard to break. What I don't get is the tactical significance of continuing to spend the money of their members on a government which doesn't always take their side.
The CWU are considering legal action to prevent Royal Mail bringing in agency staff, and are getting very little time or support from the Goverment. Gordon Brown says "get back round the table", the CWU say it's "vindictive" Mandleson's fault. Funnily enough, the CWU gave the party of government a very generous £663,177.90 in the period mentioned above. What has this achieved? Clearly, in terms of influence over Government policy for the benefit of their members, this has been money down the drain. There are significant gaps between the CWU and the party they fund.
If you're not getting anything much for your money, why continue to fund the Labour Party? Perhaps this is something the world out there might like to explain to me.
Of the four news stories featured on their website, three mention Labour very favourably in their first paragraph. Ach, I thought, maybe that's to be expected. However, under Support our Campaigns, the second article reads "Winning with Labour... Join Labour today... It's FREE for USDAW members!". It's beyond me why this is ranked more important than USDAW's campaigns for respect for shop workers and support for the minimum wage. If I was being represented by USDAW, I'd be pretty disappointed.
I've only scratched the surface of their website so I apologise if I'm now speaking out of turn. I'm deeply unimpressed by their watery support for increasing the wages of 16 and 17 year olds and in particular the equalisation of the minimum wage. Their most recent article seems to be a survey, behind that, articles from a few years ago. This is a really important issue for me, and I'm surprised that this particular union falls short of the YSI and SNP's position.
I worked for a high street retailer for six years, from sixth year at school until the year after I left uni. This retailer didn't recognise trade unions, and there were several instances where their input would have been useful (shift changes for the Christmas sales, health and safety, conditions). I see from my work in the Council on the Personnel Appeals Committee the commitment and work of Trade Unions in representing their members, and would have appreciated that during my time in retail.
I don't see from USDAW's website however that they're actually achieving anything very much for their members by paying money and giving positive coverage to Labour; it seems unfair that the hard earned money of their members should be blindly funding Labour. If it's a considered democratic and strategic decision, I could give it some respect; more often than not, unions just seem to pay out over and over again with no guarantee of anything in return.
What frustrates me the most about Trade Unions is their seemingly undying commitment to the Labour Party. This isn't just about loyalty to a cause, it's about money too; from 1st July 2008 to 30th June 2009, Trade Unions donated £9,773,918.25 from their coffers to the Labour Party. Of that, USDAW gave £1,895,997.41. In that same period, the only other political party who registered donations from a trade union was No2EU:Yes to Democracy, who were backed by the RMT.
I can understand where the trade unions are coming from, and why the bonds with Labour might be hard to break. What I don't get is the tactical significance of continuing to spend the money of their members on a government which doesn't always take their side.
The CWU are considering legal action to prevent Royal Mail bringing in agency staff, and are getting very little time or support from the Goverment. Gordon Brown says "get back round the table", the CWU say it's "vindictive" Mandleson's fault. Funnily enough, the CWU gave the party of government a very generous £663,177.90 in the period mentioned above. What has this achieved? Clearly, in terms of influence over Government policy for the benefit of their members, this has been money down the drain. There are significant gaps between the CWU and the party they fund.
If you're not getting anything much for your money, why continue to fund the Labour Party? Perhaps this is something the world out there might like to explain to me.
